Donald Trump is facing the combined powers of a weaponized justice system in both civil and criminal trials.
Democrats aren’t even pretending that these are fair trials.
And the Judge in a Trump trial made one unbelievable courtroom confession.
Democrat donor Sarah Wallace is presiding over a trial brought by the Soros-funded group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) claiming Section 3 of the 14th Amendment banned Trump from appearing on the ballot because of its provision barring anyone who engaged in insurrection or rebellion from appearing on the ballot.
Wallace rejected five motions to dismiss this lawsuit, even though courts across the country have already rejected similar challenges.
It soon became apparent to critics as to why Wallace chose this course of action.
After Colorado Democrat Governor Jared Polis nominated her to the bench in October of 2022, Wallace donated $100 to the Colorado Turnout Project before her confirmation.
The group declared on its website that its goal was to remove all Republicans in office.
Colorado Turnout Project declared that “after Colorado Republicans refused to condemn the political extremists who stormed the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021,” its new mission became to “prevent violent insurrections by addressing this problem at its source.”
“Addressing this problem at its source” means defeating every Republican running for office.
Trump’s lawyers moved for Wallace to recuse herself due to her obvious bias in the case.
But Wallace rejected that motion by absurdly claiming she had no idea what the Colorado Turnout Project stood for when she made the donation.
“I do not dispute that in October of 2022, prior to taking the bench, I apparently made a $100 contribution to the Colorado Turnout Project,” Wallace stated. “That being said, prior to yesterday, I was not cognizant of this organization or its mission. It has always been my practice, whether I was entirely successful or not, to make contributions to individuals, not [political action committees]. While I have no specific memory of this contribution, it was my practice and my intention to contribute to an individual candidate, and not a PAC.”
The crux of this case is if the events of January 6 amounted to an insurrection and if Trump participated in it.
Wallace then claimed that despite the fact that she gave money to a group declaring its intention is to defeat all Republicans, since Donald Trump incited an insurrection on January 6, she had yet to make up her mind on whether his conduct on January 6 amounted to an insurrection.
“I can assure all of the litigants that prior to the start of this litigation and to this day, I have formed no opinion whether the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection, or whether Trump engaged in insurrection, or for that matter, any of the issues that need to be decided in this hearing,” Wallace added. “If I did, I would recuse myself.”
Critics contend that this looks like another criminal case where Democrats cherry-picked the jurisdiction because they knew they would get a rigged trial thanks to a biased Judge.